"Stats"

Right, in view of recent misinterpretations, I would like the board to declare what they think of when reading, writing, saying, hearing, the words "stats" or "statistics".
Because too many people seem to understand them to mean "domestic records".
Personally, I understand them to mean all things that describe cricket and cricketers; wins, losses, MOTM awards, wickets, runs, overs, things contrived from these figures (run-rates\economy-rates, strike-rates, averages) at any level of the game.
I've just received my season's stats; bat average 4.23, bowl economy-rate 4.82-an-over (amazed it's this good - absolutely amazed, given the number of times I went for 5- and 6-an-over) and bowl av. 38.21.
Stats cover everything about cricket and if no-one kept record of any stats cricket would cease to be of any importance.

I think stats are the overall guide everyone should follow to gauge a players ablity however they are by no means Excat.

There are so many things that can't be shown through stats - such as doggy umpire calls, Nasser had 2 years stright of dreadful calls, his avg could have looked alot different.. however it could have been excatly the same.. who knows.

Different conditions, a pace bowler bowling alot of his overs on dry dust-bowls in the sub cont' for example, just because it's tough for a pace bowler on the sub cont' doesn't mean his avg of 38 means his a terible bowler overall... he could be one of the better bowlers going around the world... example if C.Vaas fantastic stats for a Pace bowler bowling where he does but if he was born in England, NZ etc how good would he have been?

Like point one, and one you pointed out in another thread.. P.Collingwood's FC avg isn't great, but watching him in the One Day Internationals he showed alot of talent and didn't once look out of his depth, and above all showed he could stand the pressures of the International stage and his techinque is perfectly accpetable. However if you just went on avgerages alone, the guy would be sitting back in Durham in the cold. And like Marc likes to say and I will use his point, where would the England team be now if just avgs were used the best English opening p/ship in years Vaughan and Trescothick wouldn't have got near the side on avg's alone.

The talent a player has to play agaist, for example England are forced :saint: to play the world's best every 2 years... no other team on the world stage have to play Australia more than twice every 10+ years. Players avg's will suffer (or be over rated) while others get to play the lesser teams alot more.

In the domestic game we see so many "fluke" seasons, where a player will avg 80ish but the rest of his cricketing life he is figured out and wont avg must over the normal domestic avg etc

Iam really not in a thinking mood so will add some more later when I can think of some.

But stats should be used as a overall guide everyone should follow to gauge a players ablity however they are by no means excat and people need to remember when looking at a guy avg 60 with the bat if he is really that good or not.

Re: "Stats"

Originally posted by Richard Right, in view of recent misinterpretations, I would like the board to declare what they think of when reading, writing, saying, hearing, the words "stats" or "statistics".
Because too many people seem to understand them to mean "domestic records".
Personally, I understand them to mean all things that describe cricket and cricketers; wins, losses, MOTM awards, wickets, runs, overs, things contrived from these figures (run-rates\economy-rates, strike-rates, averages) at any level of the game.
I've just received my season's stats; bat average 4.23, bowl economy-rate 4.82-an-over (amazed it's this good - absolutely amazed, given the number of times I went for 5- and 6-an-over) and bowl av. 38.21.
Stats cover everything about cricket and if no-one kept record of any stats cricket would cease to be of any importance.

So, by your logic..you are a pathetic bowler even more so because you play at "-------"[fill in gap]. You should not settle for mediocrity!!!

Re: Re: "Stats"

Originally posted by gibbsnsmith So, by your logic..you are a pathetic bowler even more so because you play at "-------"[fill in gap]. You should not settle for mediocrity!!!

4.82 is rubbish, try harder!!!

When I was 14, I played cricket with 'men' in village league cricket - my average and strike rate was probably comparable to Richard's - I improved drastically and he may well do to.

Anyway, back to statistics.

The most important aspect of statistics is that the shorter the term, the more misleading the statistics can be (a bit like trying to fit a curve to a small number of points). In some cases, you will get them spot on, in others you will be absolutely miles out.

I thought that the most balanced seam attack England had in recent years was when Gough, Caddick, White and Cork played. It's no surprise to discover that Gough's statistics are clearly the best of the four, but I was amazed to discover just how far behind the pack White was. I was even more amazed to discover that, statistically, there was NO DIFFERENCE between Cork and Caddick regarding their overall career test bowling records. Go ahead, check for yourself. (Arguably, Cork was better because he averaged 8 more with the bat).

Now hands up all those who think that Cork was a better bowler than Caddick for England. Hmmmmm, I see. Not many (2, probably)
.
End of discussion, I think?

Stats are a tool like anything else. They can be used or misused to interpret a situation as you see fit but they are NOT axiomatic or objective proof of anything in themselves. There still needs to be a level of interpretation for them to mean anything and even then, the parameters under which they were collected and analysed needs to be clear and even after that, they need to have some form of objective criteria applied to them to mean anything.

For example, a batsman's average. What does it mean? Say a batsman averages 40+; does that in itself mean anything or describe how good a batsman is? Not at all. So you need to apply some criteria to it to make it say something. An example would be a grading system like:

Avg. < 40 = good batsman
Avg. > 40 = great batsman

Only THEN can you make any conclusions about a batsman's average.

As I said, stats are but merely a tool and need interpretation and analysis before they mean anything. I said it before but to some it needs to be re-iterated; they do NOT constitute proof unto themselves.

A True Champion - Bob. Rest in peace. 15/04/06"People today have too big a devil and too small a God"
- Stephen Currie"The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? The Lord is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?" Psalm 27:1

Stats cannot be exclusively used to compare players. There are other factors that should be thrown into the mix aswell.

Take the great Don Bradman for example (I could be shot for saying this) as great as the man was, his stats need to taken into consideration, while an average of 99.94 cannot be devalued, it needs to be put into context:

He played 37 of his 52 tests against England and his average was 89.78 he also played his remaining tests against West Indies (5, 74.50), South Africa (5, 201.50) & India (5, 178.75) who at the time did not have very strong teams. His average against these teams was 151.58 which inflates his average immensly.

Another thing to take into consideration is that he only played in two countires - Australia and England. Didn't play on fast bouncy pitches in the West Indies, seamers in New Zealand or turners in India. Who knows, maybe playing in these other countries his average could have been a lot less, or even a lot better, we just won't know?

Another "stat" that is interesting is that Bradman scored just under half (14) of his centuries in timeless matches (25). Once again who knows, if these matches had of been the regulation five day matches they are today the match situations would have been different, declarations, chasing quick runs, less time, he may not have got those big scores, not as many hundreds? I think it is safe to say had they been 5 day matches he wouldn't have scored as many runs.

And what is to say if every test match these days was a timeless test match who would be scoring more runs, whose average would be close to 99.94? Perhaps Steve Waugh, Sachin Tendulkar maybe?

This also makes it harder to compare players over eras, IMO players can only be compared by players of their own era, as so many variables change.

And while you can say (even I have said it) scoring runs against weaker teams cannot be compared to runs against stronger teams, keep this in mind - their are 11 other batsman who batted against that team, they had the chance to score 380 or 375, but they couldn't do it, that has to say something about these batsman.

So while it is useful to use stats, they cannot be the one and only deciding factor. But they have to be given some merit when talking about players.

The color of immortality, nature and envy - you are truly a unique person. While clearly the color of nature, you also symbolize rebirth, fertility and hope in the world. On the other side of the spectrum, a natural aptitude to money with green coming to signify money and possibly even *********!

Another thing to take into consideration is that he only played in two countires - Australia and England. Didn't play on fast bouncy pitches in the West Indies, seamers in New Zealand or turners in India. Who knows, maybe playing in these other countries his average could have been a lot less, or even a lot better, we just won't know?

Not surprisingly, Bradman was asked about how he would have fared in modern cricket on MANY occasions and his answer was a gem. He said that taking into account that pitches were far better in his day and that that opposition strengths and weaknesses are nearly a science in modern cricket, he said he would not have averaged 99.94 if he played in the modern era. Of course this made everyone in the room gasp until he added one more bit;

".....but, I still would've scored many more runs than the guy who came second!"

Re: Re: Re: "Stats"

Originally posted by luckyeddie When I was 14, I played cricket with 'men' in village league cricket - my average and strike rate was probably comparable to Richard's - I improved drastically and he may well do to.

Anyway, back to statistics.

The most important aspect of statistics is that the shorter the term, the more misleading the statistics can be (a bit like trying to fit a curve to a small number of points). In some cases, you will get them spot on, in others you will be absolutely miles out.

I thought that the most balanced seam attack England had in recent years was when Gough, Caddick, White and Cork played. It's no surprise to discover that Gough's statistics are clearly the best of the four, but I was amazed to discover just how far behind the pack White was. I was even more amazed to discover that, statistically, there was NO DIFFERENCE between Cork and Caddick regarding their overall career test bowling records. Go ahead, check for yourself. (Arguably, Cork was better because he averaged 8 more with the bat).

Now hands up all those who think that Cork was a better bowler than Caddick for England. Hmmmmm, I see. Not many (2, probably)
.
End of discussion, I think?